\ \ Vhb\ proj\ Orlando\ 61827.00 FRA NEPA Support\ docs\ notes\ AgencyMeetings\ 20130708_FRA-SHPO-AAF_MtgNotes-FINAL.docx

Transportation

Land Development

 Environmental

 S e r v i c e s

101 Walnut Street

Post Office Box 9151

Watertown, MA 02471-9151

Telephone (617) 924-1770

Fax (617) 924-2286

www.vhb.com

Attendees: Mary Hassell, FRA 

Colleen Vaughn FRA

Margie Miguez, AAF

John Flint, AAF

Ginny Jones, SHPO

Tim Parsons, SHPO

Daniel Mclamon, SHPO

Melvin Brown, HNTB 

Angelique Bochnak, AMEC

Martin Marchaterre, AMEC

Ken Hardin, Janus

Amy Streelman, Janus

Lisa Standley, VHB

Chris Rife, VHB

Lucy Wayne, SouthArc

Martin Dickinson, SouthArc

Date/ Time: 8 July 2013

Project No.: 61827

Place: Telecom Re: AAF-FRA-SHPO Coordination

Notes taken by: Chris Rife

Following introductions, M. Hassell stated that FRA has decided not to use the “substitution 

approach” for streamlining the NEPA and NHPA Section 106 consultation process.

K. Hardin summarized the March 28, 2013 SHPO/ AAF meeting; minutes from that meeting were 

circulated by M. Miguez after the telecom. K. Hardin acknowledged the SHPO’s assistance and 

cooperation in expeditiously moving this project through the Section 106 process. 

L. Standley stated that only one tribe, the Seminole Tribe of Florid a, has responded to an invitation to 

be a consulting party, and they declined but want to be kept informed about the project.

C. Vaughn inquired if other parties were identified as potential consulting parties. K. Hardin 

responded that SHPO had recommended, for this project, that the scoping process be used to identify 

interested parties. For the prior EA, county and local historic preservation staff were invited , 

however this project will not involve new station locations that would extend into historic districts. 

He reported that during the scoping meetings no historic preservation staff or others indicated their 

interest in becoming consulting parties.

C. Vaughn inquired if the Hobe Sound National Wild life Refuge had been contacted , as there is a 

known archaeological site within and adjacent to the Railroad ROW. K. Hardin responded that the 

Refuge had not been contacted but that AAF would reach out to the Refuge management. FWS was 

contacted during scoping project and has not yet responded. M. Hassell noted that National Park 

Meeting 

Notes
Date: 8 July 2013

Project No.: 61827:

2

\ \ Vhb\ proj\ Orlando\ 61827.00 FRA NEPA Support\ docs\ notes\ AgencyMeetings\ 20130708_FRA-SHPO-AAF_MtgNotes-FINAL.docx

Service had been contacted during the scoping process and provided comments, but did not request 

to be a consulting party.

K. Hardin and A. Streelman summarized the method ology used for determining the APE and 

conducting the reconnaissance work. The APE for the North-South Corridor duplicates the APE used 

for the EA in the West Palm Beach to Miami segment, as previously approved. The APE was the 

Railroad ROW, and the reconnaissance area extended 150 feet from the edge of the railroad ROW. 

For the East-West Corrid or, the archaeological APE will consist of the proposed footprint of the limits 

of disturbance. The historic resources survey work will rely on previous investigations and conduct 

new work where construction is proposed outside of areas previously studied for an area up to 

150 feet from the edge of proposed ROW. Although this was not specifically discussed during the 

conference call, for purposes of clarity, the APE for the Airport Rail Alignment and vehicle 

maintenance facility (VMF) is summarized here as well. The APE for the Airport Rail Alignment will 

include the limits of the site and 150 feet from the edge of the site limits. The APE for the VMF will 

include the site limits only. 

J. Flint noted that the staging areas would be within the North-South Corridor Railroad ROW for 

construction, but along the East-West Corrid or they would all be within the Project ROW; no 

additional study is required for these staging areas.

K. Hardin and A. Streelman summarized the stud y findings. The only historic properties within the 

Railroad ROW APE are bridges along the North-South Corridor, with the exception of historic 

platform supports that were identified within the ROW. The reconnaissance survey noted that 

individual resources and historic districts near the alignment were not as dense in the northern 

portion as in the southern portion.

K. Hardin summarized the archaeological sites. A known archaeological site at the National Wildlife 

Refuge, a scattering of shells and lithics in a dune, would have been impact ed by a curve design in 

the original configuration. A redesign of the curve has avoided impacts to this site. SHPO has agreed 

that there would be no adverse impact to this site as proposed construction would not disturb the 

ground, and that appropriate avoid ance measures have been taken. Field crews are currently 

investigating the East-West Corridor outside of the SR528 right-of-way; one site within the Orland o 

Airport was previously identified and determined ineligible for the National Register.

K. Hardin summarized potential effects to cultural resources. Thirteen bridges that may contribute to 

the FEC Railway as a linear historic district, that includ es four individ ually NR-eligible bridges were 

described. SHPO has agreed that with consultation on design this would not result in adverse effects. 

Because of the nature of the project improvements, n o known archaeological sites would be 

disturbed. The noise and vibration study underway will assess the potential for adverse effects to 

adjacent historic districts. 

K. Hardin summarized consultation and public involvement. AAF will reach out to the NWR. Local 

preservation groups were previously contacted and did not express any concerns. Historic and 

archaeological sites will be avoided, and concurrence from SHPO on a conditional “no adverse effect” 

determination is expected , as was d one for the EA.

C. Vaughn requested assurance from SHPO regarding these conclusions. G. Jones stated that SHPO is 

comfortable that AAF has properly consulted with them and that, at this point, with the preliminary 

finding that there would be no adverse effects to cultural resources from the project. C. Vaughn 

requested written concurrence from SHPO regard ing the APE and methodology. She stated that 

meeting minutes and email statements would be sufficient.

K. Hardin stated that the project is now in the documentation phase. Because the project is on a tight 

schedule, the team is looking for ways to streamline the review process. They are working to 

produce a Cultural Resources Assessment Survey Report that will identify historic resources within 

the APE, which will be submitted to SHPO for concurrence. The next step would be the 

Determination of Effects Case Study. He suggested that the results of this study (determination of 
Date: 8 July 2013

Project No.: 61827:

3

\ \ Vhb\ proj\ Orlando\ 61827.00 FRA NEPA Support\ docs\ notes\ AgencyMeetings\ 20130708_FRA-SHPO-AAF_MtgNotes-FINAL.docx

effects) would be provided in the DEIS, rather than seeking SHPO review and concurrence prior to 

the DEIS. The results normally memorialized in the Case Study will be included in the DEIS. The 

DEIS would include a cover letter to SHPO explaining this modification of the typical procedure. 

G. Jones agreed that this, as a project-specific approach, was acceptable. She indicated that SHPO 

could provide a single letter of concurrence with the DEIS and the Findings, and noted that the DEIS 

should include information abou t avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. K. Hardin 

noted that the approach would streamline the process to the extent practical, with an “opt out” 

provision if needed. All agreed.